[MayDay72]

'If I accepted the proposition that there could be a life form too small to be seen with the naked eye, and yet as valuable and important as a person, I could accept that a libertarian government should attempt to prevent abortions.' -TimWhitworth

I would be inclined to agree with you that a fetus of that size ['too small to be seen with the naked eye'] does not have the full rights as an individual. However a 8 1/2 month fetus can 'be seen with the naked eye' [or even a much younger fetus]. Where would you 'draw the line'?

Thoughtomator would grant rights at the moment of conception. GovernmentShrinker would consider the child to have full rights 'when it has taken a breath of air'. I don't find either of these opinions appealing.

Maybe your 'too small to be seen with the naked eye' test isn't such a bad idea. But who's eye? Do you need to have 20/20 vision? From what distance?

I know that I am 'knit-picking' here but this is an issue of life versus death. On one hand a microscopic mass of organic cells and on the other hand an individual with inalienable rights.

[tpaine]

Thoughtomator would grant rights at the moment of conception. GovernmentShrinker would consider the child to have full rights 'when it has taken a breath of air'. I don't find either of these opinions appealing.
-MD72-


Then accept our constitutional standard of viability.
BTW, you have ignored #27, where I asked:

As medical techniques advance, viability could change; -- then insurers would have the ethical dilemma of paying for heroic measures to keep accident victims normally unviable babies alive.

Are you willing to pay this cost in ~your~ premiums?